I agree that it was nice of him to accompany her body back to England. It proves he must have cared for regardless of everything that occured while and after they were married.

Has he ever visted her grave? And what was his opinion of her after her death does he speak of her?

I do believe he cared for her a lot if not actually falling in love with her. We'll never know. At the time of engagemet I think Charles really didn't have a clue what love is.

There's a good article to read here on Royal Deaths but actually.. and this is MY opinion only.. there's no reason for Charles to visit the gravesite. In fact there is a thread about it. We hold in our hearts.

.....I was entranced with her photogenic appeal, like so many, but I never followed her closely. She was just one among many 'names' in the celebrity news section, etc.

The first moment of 'distaste' was watching her on the ski slope photo op with Charles and Andrew and Fergie. I saw the video of Fergie's and Diana's behavior and I was repelled. There was something 'arrogant' about what they were doing - wasting my time - all our time.

Then the 'telling' - especially the name calling - calling Camilla 'the rotweiler' - at once I snapped to attention. This was not a nice person. This was a very not nice person. Even a cruel person. Then the vilifying of Camilla in the press - with Diana leading the hunt. I say now Diana's statement that she disliked blood sports is 'disingenuous' by the 'baying of the hounds' and the attempt to 'draw blood' from Camilla as she led the 'fray' against that poor lady! Nasty.

Then it was something subtle - when I saw her failure to walk side-by-side with Charles, defer to him as the man she owed her role to, when I saw the one-upping. Again, vague unease - I saw something unkind when I saw the press start to 'hunt' Charles, her husband, and she 'feed' that unkindness. Basically it was the experience of the press going nasty against Charles - and then Camilla - all fomented by Diana. Lost all interest in Diana - recoiled at her photo ops, her dramas. I started to see manipulation - and a heartlessness regarding people she knew, members of her family, etc.

Final straw was watching the outpouring of grief at her death - I had an overwhelming sense of distaste and watched none of the funeral, etc. The hatred Diana had seeded against the Royal Family and particularly against Charles (and by extension Camilla) - seeing that hatred explode in her mourners - was appalling to me. Her death - tragic but very much due to her own choices - precipitated such hatred in her followers that it said a lot (to me) about who she really was as a person, and the baseness she had intentionally appealed to in people, no matter the rhetoric. It was at this juncture that I began to recognize that she was incorrectly looked upon by some as a 'role model' - and felt something very wrong had been 'pulled'.

For a long time I thought I was the only one who saw Diana as the dysfunctional creature I saw (because I am not British and I don't discuss Royalty with friends, etc) - until I saw the film 'The Queen' and saw in that film the recognition that there was something aberrant about the grief. It was with that film that I began to formulate my 'distaste' into clearer ideas about what I was seeing with the Diana phenomenon.

So here I am and glad to be here to talk through this odd fascination in the world with this person who was so clearly 'not right'.

The on-going vilification of Camilla was the nail in the coffin for me - Diana's legacy has been one of hate in so many ways, and I really feel for those she set out to damage, particularly Camilla.

It was a slow process for me as well. I never truly came to dislike Diana, but I did pity her.
She seemed so miserable, all the time.
Then I began to think she was one of those individuals who are not capable of happiness.
And after the divorce, I got the sense she was spiralling down, into a tawdry celebrity lifestyle.

Why my feelings changed: I gradually began to realize that she was constantly alienating people. It seemed as though I was always hearing that she'd had a falling-out with this person or that person...in her position, some of that is inevitable, but it was an ongoing thing, with everyone.

It caused me to understand that the problem was with Diana, not Charles or any other person.

Agreed. I think that an exception is with her charity work, especially the landmine issue. Lord Deedes, who was no admirer of Diana, accompanied her on at least one of her trips and said that when she was involved with a cause, she became an entirely different person. In those situations, she came out of herself and became truly involved with the people affected and the cause.

But when she was "off duty", she did seem to be spiralling downward. Although her death was a shock to everyone, and I was saddened by it, it was the kind of tragic death that seems to happen to beautiful, famous, celebrated people. And at the same time it was a death that many people could identify with, because so many families suffer bereavement at the hands of a drunk driver.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirabel

And after the divorce, I got the sense she was spiralling down, into a tawdry celebrity lifestyle.

My opinion of her really never changed. I've always seen her as very insecure but also loving person. I think the things she is reviled for on this forum came from her self-loathing.

If she had been more secure about herself and her body, if her marriage had been more stable and loving, I believe she wouldn't have been so attention-seeking and manipulative.

I also think Diana's personality was shaped by how young she was when she thrust on the world stage. She was 19 when she married Charles. She hadn't had time to discover her own identity. (I'm 27 and I've changed quite a bit in the last 8 years--college and independent living really opened my eyes.)

I also can't say I'm disappointed that she courted the press where charities are concerned. Although it apparently isn't something a royal is supposed to do, I think she may have forced the common person to pay attention to issues and causes (or even donate to them) that they otherwise might not have. I think it's an example of her using her celebrity in a positive way.

I do think she made many bad judgments throughout her life (Dodi, the affairs, etc) but I feel they were counter-balanced by other things (her parenting, her charity work, etc).

I think Princess Diana is a lot like Princess Grace. Princess Grace was insecure, did have body issues (menopause specifically although she had a lifelong obsession with being model thin), did have less-than-platonic friendships with men while married, did have affairs with married men before she was married, sold her children to the spotlight (NO biographer I've read has praised PG or PR for their parenting skills), and it wasn't until she was in her late 40s-early 50s that she began to reassert her independent ways and live a life separately from PR and the expectations of what a Princess is suppposed to be/do.

The difference is nobody knew until after Princess Grace died just what type of person she truly was (partly because she convinced her biographers to cover for her). Yet, she is still praised as example of how a Princess should Be. She's one of my favorite royals, but I don't think she is getting slammed for her flaws the way Diana is. In fact, Grace seems to get the worship treatment most of the time. However, I firmly believe as time passes on, Diana's reputation will be redeemed. (Grace's never really fell, but lots of fans were shocked when the first uncensored biographies about her started coming out simply because she perfected the "Lady" act.)

I also think Diana and Grace are the same in that they were assertive, but tended to be doormat, mousy types so any type of assertion shocked people as unconventional and unladylike. (Something I keep hearing in my personal life: nice people aren't supposed to be opinionated.) Grace grew up in a time period where women were trained on how to be prim and proper, Diana didn't--but both woman had to fight to have their opinions count and be taken seriously. (Both used the same venue too: the press.) I think Diana gets mocked for it because she didn't have the social skills that Princess Grace had to make controversial comments seem not controversial.

Yes, in some ways, especially as actress in their princess role, how they both were blond and beautiful and died in car accidents. But for me the differences then start.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CordeliaFitzgerald

However, I firmly believe as time passes on, Diana's reputation will be redeemed. (Grace's never really fell, but lots of fans were shocked when the first uncensored biographies about her started coming out simply because she perfected the "Lady" act.)

Yes, CordeliaFitzgerald. Princess Diana's reputation will be redeemed (Diana fans give her slack) in the history books. The legacy will be her helping to modernize the BRF though her children.

__________________
Watch your actions, for they become your habits. Watch your habits because they become your character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.

My opinion of her changed when I read she said Charles was not fit to be king. She was really rocking the royal family - could have even destroy her oldest son heritage - when trying to get back at Charles for all the pain she thought he had caused her.

But I knew that she was in too much pain to even realize that (had she known that she would have stopped because her love for her boys was total and genuine). Yes Charles hurt her but she was already in pain and need when they met in my opinion.

Princess Diana's reputation will be redeemed (Diana fans give her slack) in the history books.

You don't have to be a fan of somebody to be capable of writing a biography of that person that captures said person in a complex, multi-faceted way. Diana wasn't a saint, but she wasn't a sinner either so I don't get why this forum seems have such extremist white/black attitudes about her. And while many historians do have their biases, the best are considered the best because they are fair-minded and judicial NOT because they are a "fan" of the people they write about. (Historians with an agenda--the ones who are either all worship or all loathing about the person they are writing about--are the worst, most unreliable types anyway.)

It is difficult for me to explain it in english, and it is personal, probably not comprehensible, certainly not well-balanced but I'll try it anyway.

When Diana died, I was so shocked. I've followed her life closely through the media and could easily identify with her, since she was only a year older than me, I was easy to impress and really believed in the fairy tail. - In a way, she was like the older sister I never had. She went through life like I did, only in front of me, marriage, children, problems, whatever. I fully expected "us" to go on like that, me seing how she managed her life and taking what seemed useful for me.

I grew up in a bit and with it came a slow change over the years. While initially I was totally believing in whatever the media was feeding me, at some point, I found it more and more difficult to believe in the stories Diana told.

Why did she have to call Camilla a "Rottweiler"? With giving Camilla that nickname and selling it to the press like she did, Dianas own beauty became instrumental, without her striking appearance there was not much left but a bitter, manipulating person. She lost Charles, even with all her beauty, so it was useless with him, but she couldn't stop using it as a weapon against him. He was married to a young and beautiful woman, and yet he wanted an older, far less attractive woman. There is only one logical reason for that, Diana must have been unbearable. But in her anger, she never realized that she was implying so much.

We have only Dianas word that Camilla was the reason that "the marriage was quite crowded", Charles couldn't counter that with "but she cheated on me first", because of his position and more important, because he wouldn't do that to his sons, something she was not taking into consideration, otherwise the whole "Charls is not fit to be kind" would have never happened. She went so far as to have intimate details of her marriage published in the book from Morton.

She was a good mother to her small boys, but when was she ever with the boys after the divorce? I saw her travelling, having affairs (imho she had lousy taste in men, probably because of her incecuirites) and using the press for her own interests, uncaring about the effects her actions were having on her children.

Today, I mostly see Diana as a tragic figure, victim and offender, humanitarian and self centered child. The one thing I cannot get over is the fact that she did not use the seatbelt in Paris. What a tragedy - only because she was stupid, stupid, stupid.

That said: even today, I ask myself how she would have dealt with the joys of menopause :). And I miss her, just like the sister I never had.

I understand you completely, Janet; and I think that I can identify with your "sister" comment. I didn't see Diana as a sister-figure; but I'm the same age as you, and I saw her early on as someone who could be a role-model for me. Of course, that all changed when the stories began to emerge about infidelity and her being difficult to get along with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissJanet

It is difficult for me to explain it in english, and it is personal, probably not comprehensible, certainly not well-balanced but I'll try it anyway.

Today, I mostly see Diana as a tragic figure, victim and offender, humanitarian and self centered child.

You don't have to be a fan of somebody to be capable of writing a biography of that person that captures said person in a complex, multi-faceted way. Diana wasn't a saint, but she wasn't a sinner either so I don't get why this forum seems have such extremist white/black attitudes about her. And while many historians do have their biases, the best are considered the best because they are fair-minded and judicial NOT because they are a "fan" of the people they write about. (Historians with an agenda--the ones who are either all worship or all loathing about the person they are writing about--are the worst, most unreliable types anyway.)

Well said, I have always believed that historians should be fair-minded myself.

__________________"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales

I totally agree with the assessment that historians should be fair minded and impartial. Diana wasn't always the saint and Charles wasn't always the sinner. Sometimes the truth is always a bit inbetween.

Diana will always be a favorite of mine but I certainly acknolwedge her flaws.